User talk:Jibjabjones

Regarding your edits to Mountain Meadows massacre:
Your recent edit to Mountain Meadows massacre (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mountain Meadows massacre, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Mountain Meadows massacre was changed by Jibjabjones (c) (t) deleting 117942 characters on 2007-09-06T16:13:01+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Colleborate please....
Jibjabjones, Please stop blanking the article on Mountain Meadows massacre and replacing with the article published in the LDS church for publication in their Ensign magazine. This has several problems 1. It is plagiarism to use someone's work without attribution. 2. It is illegal if the author is claiming copyright and is subject to prosecution by the owner of the copyright. Yes, the LDS church has had their legal department issue take down orders to various websites on the internet claiming copyright infringement with legal action threatened for non-immediate compliance. 3. It is disruptive. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you don't like the article, fine. I also have objections to several items in the article. However such a drastic change needs to be discussed on the talk page with at least some consensus.(You will never achieve full consensus on a subject so controversial) 4. The article you are replacing it with cannot comply with wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point of View) as the work was commissioned by a party (the LDS church) with an interest in the subject debated. 5. In order for the borrowed text to remain in the wikipedia article you need to provide proof you have obtained permission from the copyright owner to use their text, and provide attribution to the copyright owner. Otherwise you leave wikipedia subject to legal action. Several images on wikipedia do have accompanying letters to this affect, for example. Davemeistermoab 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)